The time (and money) has finally arrived to knock down a 22 by 10 foot corrugated iron garage, that could easily already have been 20 to 30 years old when we moved into the property almost 40 years ago, and replace it with a concrete sectional garage (most likely supplied, delivered and erected by a company called Nucrete <https:// nucrete.co.uk>).
The garage was already looking the worse for wear when we moved in, not helped by the fact that whoever had laid the original concrete base, seems to have started running out of materials about halfway through the job.
It looks like they'd started off ok at the back end, finishing off the front 7 or 8 feet by simply laying a thin skim of concrete directly over the soil which rendered it unfit for use as a workshop come garage.
Our finances at the time were rather stretched so this upgrade project had to be parked on the 'back burner' along with all the other higher priority jobs that would just have to wait until we could spare the money. The garage was simply the most costly and least urgent job so consequently remained at the back of the queue until now.
I've researched the options and concluded that a concrete sectional garage offers the best durability for the price over brick or wood constructions. I'd had experience of erecting a 6 by 8 foot concrete panel shed almost half a century ago in my early twenties whilst still quite fit and living with my parents so have an appreciation for the durability of such construction.
The difference between the shed I'd erected in my parents' back garden all those years ago and today's 'concrete sectional' garage/shed construction being that back then, the panels were inserted between the pillars in 'landscape' orientation (4' by 2' and 3' by 2' panels afaicr) as opposed to the 'portrait' orientation used by Nucrete (30 or 60 cm wide, 6' 6" or 7' tall reinforced concrete panels).
This is of academic interest since I won't be having to do the actual erection work this time (nor will I be laying my own concrete base either now I have more money than fitness).
Looking at the dimensions of the garages being offered by Nucrete, I was quite surprised at how closely their 22'3" by 10'5" option matched those of the ancient 22'3" by 10'2" wide corrugated construction that currently stands at the top of our driveway. I don't think the extra 3 inches on the width of the replacement is any issue regarding planning permission (permitted rights). The height of the new garage, if I opt for the cheaper single slope roof will be well less than the existing single slope roofed garage.
That just leaves me the task of having the old garage demolished and taken away and the concrete base brought up to standard ready for delivery and erection of the new garage.
The base is one area of concern since the back end, despite the remarkably little ingress of surface water observed during a recent rain storm, is about 7 inches below the level of the garden and I'd like to eliminate any risk of such ingress with the new garage by raising the level of the concrete base another 7 inches rather than rely on mortar fillets between the bottom of the panels and the base as my only defence but I fear I may be underestimating the effectiveness of such weather proofing using just a mortar fillet on the inside only as specified by Nucrete.
Also specified by Nucrete is the requirement for the base to be 6 inches longer and wider than the garage. Since the old garage has a three course high brick retaining wall cemented to the bottom of the corrugated iron sheet wall panels, I'm assuming this retaining wall is laid directly onto the outer edges of the concrete base, inferring a base sized a good 9 or
10 inches wider than the measured dimensions of the existing garage which should meet the requirements of the new garage once the site has been cleared ready for another 7 inches of concrete (reinforced perhaps?) to be laid on top.The problem with raising the base height by 7 inches is the need to extend a ramping section where it abuts the top of the driveway. Sticking with the original base height obviates this requirement but it means I lose the "Dry by design" of an elevated base as well as the expense of digging out the soil underneath the skim of concrete to bring it up to a minimum standard versus just simply pouring another 7 inches of concrete on top of the whole base (with or without rebar).
I have a feeling that there's not a lot to choose, cost wise, between those options so raising the depth of the base seems the better choice in the light of the improved dryness that would be gained. If a job's worth doing at all, then it's worth doing properly IMO.
Anyway, that's the situation and my thoughts on the project. The advice I'm seeking are opinions on my proposed supplier, Nucrete who are based in Bradford (I'm in the NW of England btw), including any suggested alternative suppliers and any thoughts regarding the best way to bring the existing concrete base up to standard.
I plan on hiring a local contractor to clear the site down to the existing base and, quite possibly the same (if not another contractor) to deal with bringing the concrete base up to standard one way or the other.
Also, I'd like to build a small brick or concrete emergency generator shed (6' by 4' by 6' high?) at the rear, possibly on an extension to the concrete base along with buried ducts between the house and the garage to run electricity supply, co-axial and ethernet cabling.
I've considered having this done using a moling service but there are waste water drains crossing the route so I might have to run these on overhead trunking or catenary wires instead.
I think I've covered everything but please feel free to mention any oversights you think I should be addressing.:)